Stephen Colbert > Chuck Todd

I'd like to thank Chuck Todd for showing exactly why the D.C. kiss-ass media continues to do the public a disservice, and Chuck outs himself as a classic Villager. Todd complained last night that Stephen Colbert's character and recent establishment of his own Colbert Super PAC was hurting Republicans because his act made the real ones look stupid. He also complained that it was inappropriate for Colbert to testify before Congress in character, and that comedians like him make people lose confidence in a political election system that's far too serious to not take seriously.

He [Todd] cautioned the media to be "careful" about amplifying Colbert's message, and said it should not be treated as "shtick" or satire.

"What is his real agenda here?" he said. "Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money and politics, and what's going on? Or is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? I think if I were a Republican candidate I would be concerned about that."

Todd concluded by saying that he "idolized" American politics and didn't want to see people become more cynical about them.

Yes Chuck, because a presidential election system that decides to treat people like Batshit Bachmann and Herman "9-9-9" Cain as legitimate candidates and refuses to call out Mitt Romney for flip-flopping or deceiving on....well pretty much any issue is absolute high-class royalty that should be given the utmost respect. At least Cain gets the joke, he and Colbert held a rally in Charleston this afternoon, and I bet a lot more people turned out for that than most other events in that silly state this week.

Colbert continues on a roll, just killing it in an appearance on "Morning Joe" in South Carolina today. The answers from Colbert about how his Super PAC is actually separate from his candidacy despite having the same people working out the ads and money-funneling are tremendous, because our media will never ask those real questions of candidates being led by the Koch PACs and Karl Rove PACs of the world. And there's probably more legitimate answers given from "Candidate" Colbert in that interview than you get in the typical debate, because the "legitimate" candidates are given focus-group tested crap that avoids giving realistic answers to our tough problems.

Chuck Todd's whiny protestations illustrate exactly why Comedy Central has more legitimacy than the "legitimate" media. Chuck's big concern is that people like Colbert will delegitimize this game that he and the politicians he covers play, and that it makes folks like him on the "serious" media look bad. Well Chucky, you look bad because YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB BADLY. You are more concerned with maintaining a two-party system that allows you a lot of media attention and (most importantly) ACCESS to people in power. And that's why you and the other D.C. media keep up this false equivalency game that gives two opinions equal time, regardless of which may be true and which may not, and never calls out the clearly corrupt and money-influenced system that we have, because your network (and indirectly, your salary) gets a lot of income from maintaining the corrupt system, and you don't dare bite the hands that feed you.

On the other hand, Colbert has no problems in hammering his subjects, as evidenced in what is still about his best performance - in front of George Bush at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in 2006, and exposing the media for not questioning Bush's BS much earlier.

In other words, comics like Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart call out the BS existence that people like Chuck Todd and other D.C. media relies on, and comedians like them are able to use judgment to mock those who deserve to be mocked, instead of being a media member that kisses up in exchange for grabbing the next big interview that'll propel a Chuck Todd-type "Journalist" into further fame.

We see through your game Chuck, and this country is far too important to us to allow it to be debased and destroyed by gravy-training "serious" media members like you.